The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1887-08-10
THE DENTAL BOARDS POWER
Courts Cannot Revise or Review Its Re-
fusal to Issue Certificates.
How Attorney General Kitchener Construes
the Law Creating the Board and Regu-
lating the Licensing of Dentists.

Professor Crawford and Dr. Glenn, represent
atives of the dental college department of the
University of Tennessee. still in the city,
endeavoring to persuade the State dental board
to reverse It's decision against issuing registra-
ton licenses to graduates of the institution. Dr.
Wilson of Huntngburg, one OF the graduates
who has been successful practitioner for
more than twenty years. has been granted
license. but there are number OF younger men,
for whom the decision may make considerable
trouble. It is claimed that the board has dis
eliminated again the Tennessee institution, and
DR. A. Wilson asserts that he knows there is now
dentist practicing in Dale Ind. who graduated
from the Indianapolis dental college after taking
a single course.
The dental board asked Attorney general
Kitchener to construe the law under which they
are working. His opinion. which was delivered
yesterday. is rather favorable to the boards po-
sition. The section the Attorney general was
asked about especially is as follows
"Any person who shall prove to the
satisfaction of said board of examiners that he
is graduate of dental college duly and legally
incorporated, and who shall present diploma
therefrom, and shall further show that said
college is of good repute, shall be entitled to a
registration certificate on the pay ment of fee
of 81 to said board"
This section. the Attorney general says. re-
Qulres four things (1) Proof Of graduation at
a dental college; (2( the presentation OF a diplo-
ma from such college; ~ proof that the college is
of good repute: AZ the payment OF the fee. 1t
has been said, - continues the Attorney general
that if this section conferred judicial powers
the board of examiners it would be unccnstitu-
tonal. because it would be in violation of Ar.
tlcle 3 of the Constitution of State. I
have not thought it necessary to simply con-
slider the question of its consttutionality, for the
reason that believe it is the duty of the officers
of the State to enforce such laws may
be passed by the Legislature, except where
they appeared to be in violation of the Con-
stitutiou beyond reasonable doubt, until they
are held to be unconstitutional by the courts.
Assuming then, that this section does not con-
fer judicial powers the board, and that it only
REQUIRES the performance of ministerial or dis
the board in granting refusing the certificate
is final and conclusive, and cannot
be reversed reviewed by any court
The statute Is not invalid or Objectionable be-
cause it may be said to grant the board lndef-
mite discretionary powers. II these premises are
correct it follows inevitably that it is for the
board OF examiners to grant or to refuse to
Issue certificates as the facts in their judgment
may warrant. They determine whether
not the applicant is graduate of a
dental college, whether the document
he presents is diploma, and
whether the college is of good repute In deter
mining the last question. they may reject the
diploma of college which is now of good repute
if. when the diploma was issued it not OF
good repute because of low standard Of in
instruction ana requirements, or from any otner
causes; they may accept the diploma Of
college which is now of ill repute if, when it was
issued, the college was of good repute. To hold
otherwise is to rob the board of all discretionary
powers, and make the efficiency of diplomas
depend entirely upon conditions Of the present
time regardless of their value when they were
issued"
The representatives of the university have
not yet determined what course they will pur-
sue but state that if the board continues to
fuse TO recognize the institution as reputable,
mandamus proceedings will doubtless be re-
sorted to-